Beer and Doer

[split from discussion on this thread: Bubs b2wf journal - #10 by Srinath]

This is from an actually free person whose name I’m not allowed to share…I’d basically asked them the difference between ego and doer…this content is so darn good, it will be a waste of life not to share it :

I left all spiritual reference behind, as far as ‘my’ actualism practice was concerned, when ‘I’ fully, i.e. intellectually and experientially, understood that an actual freedom lies 180 degrees in the opposite direction to all spiritual beliefs.

Even today I would say that the concept of ego and soul is very useful to explain to people with a spiritual background, who are interested in learning what actualism is about, that for enabling an actual freedom both the ego and the soul have to die (permanently vacate the body) because all they know is spiritual freedom (aka enlightenment) and all that stands in the way of spiritual freedom is one’s ego (also referred to as the ‘self’).

However, for a practicing actualist it is far more useful to find out how ‘I’ tick - whereby ‘I’ refers to one’s identity as a whole, both as one’s social identity and as one’s instinctual passions (and no, the social identity is not the same as the ego or the doer) - so that one can more and more enjoy and appreciate each moment of being alive and thus make ‘me’ more and more redundant.

You can see that in my above quote I am using the word ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ to denote the difference between being in control and being out-from-control, i.e. to describe the experience of being the ‘beer’ as opposed to the experience of having been the ‘doer’. It is somewhat futile to create a concept of a ‘doer’ and compare that to either the spiritual or the psychological/ psychiatric concept of ‘ego’ because it will not contribute anything helpful to enable one to slip out from under control and experience oneself as the ‘beer’ rather than the ‘doer’.

When all of ‘me’ is on board in wanting to become free from the human condition, when ‘I’ have no objections to being redundant and vacate the scene forever, then ‘I’ am pulled forward by pure intent garnered from the pure consciousness experience to go blessedly into oblivion. Then, and only then, can ‘I’ let go of the controls and become the ‘beer’ rather than the ‘doer’ of my experience of being alive.

1 Like

May be it’s just me, @Shashank, but I find those quotes confussing… (while @Srinath’s explanation is in line with what I had understood on the subject -at least until now…-).

Considering that the goal in this case is to make it easier for @bub to understand the differences between paradigms, maybe @geoffrey can also contribute something useful to @bub about them.

@Miguel Would it be possible for you to spell out what it is you find confusing about the above quote and/or discrepant between the two descriptions?

Thanks for sharing Shashank! Sounds like something Vineeto would say. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I second that. It sounds like something one would read from the AFT Trust itself.

1 Like

Oh, maybe it was this apparent discrepancy? Were there others?


Just occurred to me that actualism aims for a suspension/subordination of ego activity and an ascendancy/preeminence of soul activity.

Perhaps that was why the unknown actually free person was resistant towards equating doer/beer with ego/soul?

Because then the essential elements of the actualism process, i.e. cessation of doer/ascendency of beer, would equate to the essential elements of the enlightenment process, i.e cessation of ego/ascendency of soul?

Indeed, if doer = ego and beer = soul, then it begins looking remarkably familiar.

I hadn’t ever come across this issue before and had thought of it in the terms that @Srinath describes, but Richard goes into it here:

…because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are not being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom.

The following exchange (also back in 1997) explicates why this ‘doer = ego’ and ‘beer = soul’ attribution is experientially contraindicated inasmuch agency is inextricably part-and-parcel of being a sentient creature.


• [Richard]: “(…). Thus it is the sense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (sorrow and malice). Not just one half of the identity – the ego – but the other half – the soul – as well, is at fault. Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self must psychologically self-immolate also. After all, the soul – along with the ego – is the culprit, for all sorrow and malice stem from the continued belief in their reality. When the ego – the self – dissolves, one’s sense of identity remains intact. Instead of identifying as the ego – the self – one now as an Enlightened Being identifies as the soul – the Self. (…). Thus I asked myself the question: If ‘I’ as ego (the self) wreak havoc, could it be that ‘I’ as soul (the Self) am the cause [of] the continued suffering?”
• [Respondent № 11]: “The doer-ship of actions belongs to the ‘I’ as ego. I can follow that. If the doer-ship of actions belongs to the ‘I’ ego (presumably mind) then how can the cause of suffering be the soul (the Self) which is not the doer-ship of actions (because who already state that the ‘I’ ego is)?”
• [Richard]: “But “the doer-ship of actions” after the transcendence of ‘I’ as ego (the self) is ‘I’ as soul (the Self). That is the nitty-gritty of the problem … and it has kept humankind in thralldom for aeons. It has got you too.
For sure, ‘I’ as ego am no longer “the doer-ship of actions” … now the ‘Supreme Soul’ is. But ‘I’ am the ‘Supreme Soul’, therefore ‘I’ (an identity) am the doer. No matter how godly ‘I’ am, ‘I’ am the problem”.

Could it be that with Srinath passing through any out-from-control ‘beer’ phase rather quickly (if at all!), there wasn’t time for an observation of these discrepancies?

I’ll leave it to him to explicate :slight_smile:

@henryyyyyyyyyy In fairness to Srinath, he was also quoting Richard on the AFT:

Richard: The ego-self . . . who arises out of the instinctual-self . . . somewhere around age two as the doer of the affective experience of what is happening – as opposed to the beer of the affective experience of what is happening – is not the social identity/cultural conscience
Social Identity; Social Mores

Yes, but Richard does not say here that the ‘beer’ is the soul - though it does seem rather ‘obvious’ … dare I say ‘intuitive’ to jump to that conclusion.

Yes, there’s a clear implication there. But he also unequivocally equates ego with the doer. So again, in the actualism process, if the ego (doer) is abeyant, then the soul has to predominate, as that is the other part of the identity.

Yes… whereupon the ‘Supreme Soul’ becomes the ‘doer.’

Being the ‘beer’ has to do with the experience of being out-from-control, wherein:

“Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord … one is *unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’ *.”

(from the same source)

Although one couldn’t regard the soul (beer) as a doer. Assuming the “core” equates to the “soul”:

Richard (2002): The core is not the doer but the beer and, as such, is being a non-separate experiencing
Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 12

There’s no more doing in either the actualism process or in the enlightenment process (if I’m not mistaken).

1 Like

In the enlightenment process, the ‘doing’ is outsourced to an eternal, undying, all-powerful entity ‘outside myself’ … in other words, ‘Me’ as Soul.

That’s what makes enlightenment dissociative, it’s still ‘Me’ doing it, though ‘I’ believe that I’m not doing it anymore because the ego isn’t.

Also, apologies to @bub for running away with your journal, perhaps this is best split into another topic?

My understanding of enlightenment (which I am decidedly not very well versed on) is that there is no doing of any kind, there is just Being (with a capital B). I get my understanding of enlightenment predominately from Richard’s descriptions. I might review what he’s written about that before making further comparisons between the actualism process and enlightenment.

I don’t think he means to associate ‘being the beer’ with ‘Being.’

As confusing as that is.

I’ll dig around a bit more and see if I can find anything

Ok, something I found:

Out from control =

"In effect, the actualism process [as opposed to the actualism method, which is controlled by the ‘doer’] is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable.

Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime!"


“Similarly, an out-from-control feeling-being is automatically as near to actually caring as a feeling-being can be per favour the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity and, thus, in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative.

Where in the enlightenment process one is ‘surrendering one’s will to a God,’ in the actualism process:


“To step out from control was a step deliberately taken, after sufficient clearing of the ground, so to speak, and after sufficiently ascertaining that what I wanted was indeed what I was aiming for (the genuine article of an actual freedom). Taking that step ‘I’ then willingly and with intent gave myself permission to allow the universe to pull me forward ever more strongly into the hitherto entirely unknown territory that lay between me and the ultimate goal.”

This ‘allowing the universe to pull me forward’ is driven by pure intent.

So the difference is in if one is allowing a God aka ‘Me’ to do the pulling, or allowing the universe via pure intent to do the pulling.

(I’ll leave it for @Miguel to decide whether or how to split off this discussion into it’s own topic. For 1 - I don’t know how or whether I have the ability to transfer posts; 2 - One could say he started all this :smile:)

No doubt because it could open up a can of worms.

Interestingly, during those 6 months or so that Richard said he was out-from-control virtually free, it was God that was operative.

The essential bit about out-from-control virtual freedom is that doer is abeyant/ beer is ascendent. Of course, Richard does not wish to associate out-from-control with anything religious or spiritual (even though his out-from-control experience was unequivocally spiritual, at least for the majority of its duration, from circa April '81 to September '81).

So in the below quote, doer does not equal ego; beer does not equal soul:

Richard (2016): Lastly, because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are not being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom.
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 45

Whereas elsewhere, at other times, he writes that doer equals ego; beer equals soul. The spiritual connotations then with his own virtual freedom are unavoidable (and it makes sense, he was guided in large part by The Absolute).

ego = doer; beer = soul:

Richard (2012): And, just as the ego-self (aka the ‘thinker’/the ‘doer’) has to die, so as to become spiritually enlightened/mystically awakened, so too does the spirit-self (aka the ‘feeler’/the ‘beer’) in order for the flesh-and-blood body to be actually free from the human condition.
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 31

ego = doer

Richard (2015): Speaking from personal experience: in September 1981 when the then-resident identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body became awakened/ enlightened ‘he’ was immediately aware – due to its marked absence – that ‘his’ ego/ ego-self (i.e., ‘the thinker’/ ‘the doer’) had most certainly died and ‘he’ would remark to those interested how ironic it was that ‘he’ only knew for sure now (now that it had vanished completely) how there had indeed been an operant ego all the while leading up to that moment.
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 48

ego = doer; beer = soul

Richard (2004): However, what I was referring to – in response to your query ‘how am ‘I’ doing the experience of what is happening (as an operant)’ – is the ego-self proper (an emotional/passional-mental construct) who arises out of the soul-self (an inchoate affective ‘being’/amorphous ‘presence’ the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into) somewhere around age two as the doer of the affective experience of what is happening … as opposed to the beer of the affective experience of what is happening.
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 25

and then note the tool tips pop-up next to “the beer” in the above quote. Richard provides the definition he ascribed to, at least back then:

[Dictionary Definition]: ‘beer’ (also ‘be-er’): someone who is or exists, esp. the Self-existent, God’. (Oxford Dictionary).

He – and this unknown actually free person – now wish to say that the doer is not ego and the beer is not the soul.

Given that this is starting to become quite a tricky and intricate conversation about Beer and Doer, I’ve decided to split this into a new thread and leave it out of Bub’s journal.